Lakhdar Boumediene is an Algerian (and Bosnian citizen) who, while living in Bosnia and working for the International Red Crescent, was arrested by the Bosnian government (at the behest of the Bush administration) shortly after 9/11 on charges of plotting to blow up a U.S. and British embassy, but was then quickly cleared by Bosnian courts of any wrongdoing and ordered released. But as he was about to be released -- in January, 2002 -- he was abducted by the U.S. military inside Bosnia and shipped to Guantanamo, where he remained without charges for the next almost 8 years, and was clearly tortured.
In mid-2008, the U.S. Supreme Court -- in a case bearing his name -- ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional because it denied Guantanamo detainees the right of habeas corpus (i.e., to have the validity of the accusations against them reviewed by a court). When, pursuant to that decision, Boumediene finally had a U.S. court review the accusations against him in November, 2008, a federal judge -- the far right, Bush-43-appointed Richard Leon -- ruled there was no credible evidence to justify his detention (as well as the detention of four other Algerian-Bosnian detainees) and ordered them all released immediately. In other words, Boumediene spent almost 8 years in a Guantanamo cage, being brutally tortured, despite there being no evidence (as Bosnian courts had already found) that he had done anything wrong at all. I wrote about Boumediene's story in detail here.
Here is an interview with Lakhdar following his release:
(1) The central premise of all discussions about Guantanamo -- still -- is always that the people who are detained there are "Terrorists." They're the Worst of the Worst. Media figures and many citizens just uncritically believe -- and constantly assert -- that Guantanamo detainees are "Terrorists" even though they've had no trial and it's just the Government's claim that they're "dangerous." We repeatedly saw that premise asserted during the recent debate over Obama's proposal of indefinite detention ("There are dangerous Terrorists who he can't release!"). If this episode doesn't demonstrate the extreme dishonesty of that premise -- of assuming that people who have had no trials are Terrorists simply because the Government claims this -- what would demonstrate it?
(2) Those who voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- all GOP Senators (except Chafee) and Democrats Jay Rockefeller, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, Mark Pryor, Tim Johnson, Bob Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Ben and Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, and Joe Lieberman, plus 219 GOP and 34 Democratic House members -- were in favor of keeping people like Boumediene at Guantanamo indefinitely without any right of judicial review. The only reason Boumediene was released is because the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 vote) ruled that law unconstitutional and he was thus able to have a court review the evidence (i.e., the lack thereof) against him.
Does anyone object to the term "moral depravity" being applied to those in Congress who voted to keep completely innocent people in cages for life without any opportunity to have a court review the accusations against them? If these members of Congress had their way, these completely innocent individuals would still be encaged at Guantanamo.
Many politicians try to boil this down to talking points about letting terrorists loose on the streets. But what about the people like this, who are branded a terrorist without review or trial and don't get to see the street again? And for those who think he got a review and that's how he got out, that's after nearly eight years.
In the March 2003 Senate vote to confirm Bybee, Senators Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg voted no. Unfortunately only 17 other Democrats joined them, but at least Corzine and Lautenberg can be proud.
Representative Rush Holt put out the following statement on today's release of Bush-era memos from the Office of Legal Counsel that justified torture:
"I've been eager for these memos to see the light of day so that everyone will know and we all can learn from the dangerous groupthink that enveloped policy makers. Although I'm not a lawyer, I don't think they hold up to legal analysis, to say nothing of common sense and common decency."
"We have now reached a point where the tactics we have adopted in the struggle against terrorism have compromised our ability to respond to the 9/11 conspiracy itself," Farmer said.
Farmer served as Attorney General under Governors Whitman and DeFrancesco. He originally opposed the independent commission, but said he decided it was necessary after the government didn't prosecute the 20th hijacker because he was tortured. He continued:
"No amount of internal bureaucratic review will suffice to allay public concern about the way its government has been conducting itself," Farmer said.
Watching highlights of the testimony yesterday, you had Republicans on the committee seemingly opposing the idea of a commission because they said the matter should be investigated by the Justice Department. On the Rachel Maddow show last night, Senator Pat Leahy was talking about just this and said they should be careful what they wish for:The Obama administration hasn't seemed very interested in pursuing the matter as of yet. Leahy doesn't think we will get the full truth unless we proceed with an independent commission. He also made a good point, that you have to read the page before you turn it so that you don't have future administrations tempted to break the law again.
Rush Holt, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chair of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, had this reaction to the decision by President Obama to close Guantanamo Bay within a year:
"President Obama promised to take swift action to bring this sorry chapter in our nation's history to an end, and today he took the first, significant steps to do so. Today's orders will begin the process of putting our detainee policies back on sound legal footing while maintaining our ability to get actionable intelligence," said Rep. Rush Holt, D-Hopewell Township. "I am confident that the Obama administration will continue to restore our nation's credibility and moral leadership."
Congressman Holt went further, urging the President to support his legislation that would require the videorecording of all interactions between American government personnel or contractors, and detainees arrested in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
"When he was an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama supported legislation to require law enforcement to videotape those in custody to get the best results of interrogations and to document the procedures and treatment followed. I urge him to support my legislation, passed last year in the House of Representatives, to require the recording of all interrogations of those in American custody."
It's been a long time coming for the decision to close Guantanamo, but now comes the hard part. Figuring out what to do with the people that the past administration locked away trying to forget about will require great time and planning. This is a good first step toward changing what has become an awful image of American foreign policy.
What does it say about the last 8 years that Congressman Rush Holt even needs to call for an Executive order to ban torture::
"Torture tarnishes our nation's values and damages our credibility," Holt said. "I have worked for years to end our government's use of torture. While an Executive Order will not remove the need for legislation on the issue, it is a way for President-elect Obama to put an immediate halt to our government's use of torture during interrogations and to prevent secret detentions. By exercising his authority and acting quickly, he will begin to restore our moral leadership on the issue and repair some of the harm that has been done to our international reputation."
1) Bar the use of interrogation techniques which we would not find acceptable if used against Americans.
2) Create one national standard for the interrogation and treatment of prisoners for all personnel affiliated with all U.S. forces and agencies.
3) Require that we acknowledge all detainees to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and allow the ICRC access to them.
4) Require that we allow all detainees to have the opportunity to defend themselves in court.
5) Bar transport of people to other countries where there is an expectation of torture.
6) Provide for transparency in our confinement and interrogation procedures, including the videotaping of all interactions between prisoners and American personnel.
7) Make clear that any U.S. official who authorizes, implements, or fails to prevent the use of torture will be held accountable.
You can read more here about the declaration of principles and who was involved in the process of developing them. We'll have to see what Obama does regarding this issue.
Joshua Casteel will be the keynote speaker at Pax Christi NJ's upcoming spring assembly to be held on March 28, 2009 at Felician College in Lodi. Joshua will also be making himself available for other speaking engagements at the end of March. For more information or to book Joshua contact:
Kathy O'Leary 908-273-0751 kathy-wargo@comcast.net
About Joshua Casteel
Joshua is a former interrogator at Abu Ghraib turned conscientious objector and a recent convert to Catholicism. He gave witness at Winter Soldier and traveled to Rome in March of 2007 with the Catholic Peace Fellowship to meet with Pope Benedict XVI and members of the Vatican to advance the issue of conscientious objection. He is featured along with Camilo Mejia and six other CO's in the documentary Soldiers of Conscience which will air on PBS's P.O.V. on October 16th.
One of the good things about growing older is that we have the chance to learn from our mistakes. I wonder if Democrats in Congress will ever learn how George W. Bush operates. I'd like to think Senators Lautenberg and Menendez learned something from their vote for the Military Commissions Act, but as far as I can tell, they and their colleagues in Congress sit idly by while telecom immunity is pushed through by Republicans. It's the same story all over again. As for what pardoning illegal acts and approving courts with pre-determined outcomes gets us, I recommend this remarkable interview with George W. Bush:
Look at how Menendez and Lautenberg -- yes, and Rob Andrews and all six Republicans -- let Bush say Congress approved his crimes. As Glen Greenwald notes, Republicans are already boasting they won on telecom immunity. Pathetic, and our Democrats in New Jersey, however they officially vote, let it happen again and again.
As Bush says, "We passed a Law." Again, and again.
Senators Menendez, Byrd and Clinton wrote a letter to Bush urging him to boycott the opening olympic ceremonies in Beijing to protest their human rights abuses:
We are writing to express our concerns about the Chinese government?s continued human rights violations and urge you not to attend the opening ceremonies at the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer.
Menendez obviously regrets his vote for the Military Commissions Act and is trying to reverse some of the damage, but I don't know... I'm not sure a boycott from Mr Torture-in-Chief really caries much weight. He'll just draw added attention to how hypocritical we are as a country about human rights abuses. We've lost the moral high ground and our president is in no position to be lecturing other countries. I think a boycott of the ceremonies from some of the athletes would be much more meaningful and symbolic.
The House will vote today to try to override Bush's pro-torture veto, though it's unlikely they'll have the 2/3 votes needed (Update: the override failed 225-188, short of 2/3. Reps LoBiondo, Ferguson, Frelinghuysen, Garrett and Saxton voted for torture while Chris Smith joined NJ's Democrats in voting to override the veto). Congressman Rush Holt spoke on the issue:
"Let's be clear: American personnel - civilian or military - should never engage in interrogation practices that amount to torture. The provision the President objects to would simply put the entire U.S. government under one standard for interrogating detainees: the Army Field Manual. The heads of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI have testified that the non-torture guidelines in this bill are adequate for their people to follow in interrogation of dangerous people.
"If the President were serious about restoring our reputation in the world and about providing moral and legal clarity for all government employees involved in the handling or interrogating detainees, he would never have vetoed this bill. Providing that moral and legal clarity is our Constitutional obligation, and to that end I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto.
Update 2: 5th district Congressional candidate Dennis Shulman:
"We need members of Congress who take issues of morality seriously. Instead of a reliable vote for torture like Scott Garrett, we need representatives who recognize that torture inherently generates unreliable information while reducing our standing in the world. Our great strength as a nation is that, to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., while the arc of our history is long, it bends toward justice.
In the end, we will renounce the turn away from justice that torture represents."
Today President Bush vetoed the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act, which banned the use of torture by all American government personnel. Congressman Rush Holt responded:
"By proudly and openly vetoing this legislation, President Bush is signaling to the world that he wants the US to be able to use torture--even though the use of torture can never make America safe. Torture never produces reliable information, and its use only gives aid and comfort to our enemies by bringing us down to their barbaric level in the eyes of the world. For the sake of our standing and our national security, I hope Congress will vote to override this veto next week."
Military prosecutors are in the final phases of preparing the first sweeping case against suspected conspirators in the plot that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and drew the United States into war, people who have been briefed on the case said.
The charges, to be filed in the military commission system at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would involve as many as six detainees held at the detention camp, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who has said he was the principal planner of the plot.
...
"The thinking was 9/11 is the heart and soul of the whole thing. The thinking was: go for that," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no one in the government was authorized to speak about the case.
I have always regarded this matter as a New Jersey issue because so many of the victims lived here. I been outraged at the failure to prosecute anyone involved in the attack. At least these military commissions will finally result in a trial, although the price paid by Senators Menendez and Lautenberg of legalizing torture and gutting habeas corpus was too high. I guess we should be grateful that someone decided to actually "go for" 9/11 convictions to "establish credibility."
This is especially true because I do not need to be a government official, "Super-Delegate" or lawyer to know that murdering thousands of innocents was already illegal in New York. So, why are these questional legal tactics necessary? The answer is almost certainly to protect those in the Bush Administration who are guilty of torture:
Lawyers have said that two of those are men whose treatment in American hands would inevitably be a focus of defense lawyers in their cases.
One of them, Mr. Mohammed, known as KSM, was subject to the simulated-drowning technique known as waterboarding while in secret C.I.A. custody, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, confirmed this week.
Like our senators, I find it unimaginable that we let these terrorist monsters get away with their crimes, but our justice will be tainted as the Bush administration holds an election-year trial under rules it invented.
The news that a videotaped interrogation was destroyed by the CIA has prompted Congressman Rush Holt to hold oversight hearings next week to get some answers(press release):
In his letter to CIA employees, General Hayden stated that 'the Agency was determined that it proceed in accord with established legal and policy guidelines. So, on its own, it began to videotape interrogations.' The CIA wanted the video recording to determine if their interrogation program was effective and proper, but apparently did not want anyone else to determine if they were effective and proper - not the courts, not Congress.
The unilateral nature of the Agency's actions-apparently taken without regard to the 9/11 Commission inquiry or subsequent court proceedings involving detainee policy-only underscores why Congress must reassert its full Constitutional powers in regulating how detainees are treated while in U.S. custody. Next week, I plan to hold an oversight hearing in the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel with General Hayden to examine this matter in detail."
Although I doubt they'll get any answers because this administration doesn't see the need to answer to anyone, I'm glad Congressman Holt is attempting to hold them accountable for their actions.
The New York Times has discovered that the CIA lied to the 9/11 Commission. For "quality control" reasons (you can't make it up), the CIA videotaped their "severe interrogation techniques."
The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and any other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.
The tapes were later destroyed to prevent their ever being viewed by the public. Now, I don't doubt that the CIA is correct that the release of these tapes would have lead to legal problems for those involved and that it would enrage Muslims (and Christians, atheists, and everyone else.) I don't even doubt that the tapes themselves were worthless, since torture does not produce reliable information. But it is clear that the CIA lied to the 9/11 Commission. Tom Kean Sr. has a responsibity to condemn this coverup, and demand an investigation and prosecution:
Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.
If tapes were destroyed, he said, "it's a big deal, it's a very big deal," because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.
Frankly, I would like to see these Al Qaeda leaders tried under New York's and Virginia's laws and sentenced to death. But it in no way endorses Al Qaeda's actions when I warn that allowing the government to torture and lie to investigators strikes at the heart of democratic government.
Incidentally, they also lied to New Jersey representative -- and member of the House Intelligence Committee charged with overseeing them:
Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, has been pushing legislation in Congress to have all detainee interrogations videotaped so officials can refer to the tapes multiple times to glean better information.
Mr. Holt said he had been told many times that the C.I.A. does not record the interrogation of detainees. "When I would ask them whether they had reviewed the tapes to better understand the intelligence, they said 'What tapes?'," he said.
US Senator Bob Menendez today announced that he plans to vote against Bush's Attorney General nominee, Michael Mukasey. In a speech on the floor of the Senate, Menendez said that he could not vote to confirm Mukasey in light of the Mukasey's inability to affirm that waterboarding is indeed illegal.
You can read the Senator's speech, in its entirety, below the fold.
Update (11:50 PM): Despite the best efforts of Senators Lautenberg and Menendez, who voted against Mukasey, the US Senate has just cofirmed him by a vote of 53-40.
Two weeks ago, I wrote an open letter to Senator Menendez urging him to co-sponsor Senator Arlen Specter's Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, S.185. Knowing that the Senator had already signed on as an early co-sponsor of Senator Dodd's much stronger bill, the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, it just made sense.
So I'm very happy to announce that the Senator has (predictably) made good on his promise to work to restore Habeas Corpus by signing on as a co-sponsor of S.185. Here is his statement:
"I am a co-sponsor - a proud co-sponsor - of Senator Specter's bill, and I will continue to support and champion efforts to restore the right of Habeas Corpus. To that end, I have also agreed to co-sponsor the Leahy amendment to the Defense Authorization bill currently on the Senate floor. This issue is a priority, and I am hopeful that we can pass legislation in the near future."
For some, this may not be enough to earn him forgiveness for voting for the Military Commissions Act in 2006. I understand that position, but disagree. That vote was not taken in a vacuum, either politically or in terms of policy. And it was not taken lightly by the Senator, who at the time called it "an imperfect bill," and "not the bill [he] wanted."
But it cannot be ignored that Senator Menendez has lived up to the pledge he made in the aftermath of his vote "to make necessary improvements to this legislation to protect the civil liberties of all Americans." I'm proud to see him following through on this with the same trademark tenacity and dedication that he brings to issues like immigration reform, port security, and the protection of working families.
As you know, as your campaign's Director of Internet Operations last fall, I took one heck of a beating from our netroots allies for your vote for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, aka 'The Torture Bill.' It was a bill you weren't happy with, but you voted for it for reasons I understand. Within the campaign and to you personally, I made my displeasure known and, to your credit, you were very gracious about the issue. You had nothing but sympathy for my position and apologized personally for the heat I took. Publicly, you explained your vote and pledged that one of the first things you would do if elected to the Senate would be to take action to restore Habeas Corpus rights.
You are a man of your word. In February, you were one of the original co-sponsors of Senator Dodd's Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, S.576. At the time, you said, "we must not compromise the values and virtues of our nation and Constitution" in fighting terrorism, that S.576 "will give us the tools to defend America from her enemies, while never ceding our standing as a nation of freedom and justice."
But the fact of the matter is that S.576 currently appears to be stalled. There is another option on the table, however. As Bob Geiger has written, Senator Arlen Specter has put forward the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, S.185. The bill has already passed through the Judiciary Committee and counts among its co-sponsors many of your fellow co-sponsors of S.576, like Senators Lautenberg, Brown, Feingold, Leahy, and Kennedy.
Your co-sponsorship of Senator Dodd's S.576 is much appreciated. And it shows that you are serious about restoring the right of Habeas Corpus. While it is not as progressive or wide-ranging as S.576, Senator Specter's S.185 has a much better chance of being passed and being passed quickly. So I ask as a constituent, a former employee, and a supporter that you sign on as a co-sponsor of S.185 as well.
Why then did you -- our trusted senators -- vote for a bill that by your own admission allows torture, violates the Geneva convetion and the U.S. Constitution? Here's what you had to say last year:
[Menendez:] "In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled the existing process unconstitutional, it leaves us without anything. It seems to me while it is not the bill I wanted - as evidenced by the way I voted on the amendments - I think there has to be a process in place. In the end, with the choice of passing an imperfect bill, or allowing the terrorists to go free and the Bush administration to operate without any oversight, I took a stand to protect the American people. I look forward to returning to the Senate with a Democratic majority to make necessary improvements to this legislation to protect the civil liberties of all Americans."
[Lautenberg:]"While aspects of this plan that will need to be reviewed by the courts, the bottom line is that we need to move forward and prosecute these accused terrorists. With the loss of 700 people on 9/11, the victims of terrorism in New Jersey have waited too long to see people involved in the worst terror attack in our nation's history brought to justice."
So getting trials for accused terrorists was worth selling out our principles. And what did we get? As the AP reports that the accused terrorists cannot be tried under the law!:
The judges agreed that there was one problem they could not resolve -- the new legislation says only "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan had previously been identified by military panels only as enemy combatants, lacking the critical "unlawful" designation.
So, you legalized torture and gave up habeas corpus for nothing. And by the way, you will never, ever convince me that bin Laden's aides and Khalid Sheik Mohammed in particular cannot be tried for murder in New York (and Virginia, and Pennsylvania) under existing law, and should have been already.
Yesterday we broke the news that Senator Menendez would be co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007" - legislation that would restore habeas corpus, ban torture and uphold the Geneva Convention. This is what Menendez had to say about it today:
"Protecting the American people is our most sacred responsibility, therefore we must do all we can to destroy those who would try to destroy our way of life. In doing so, however, we must not compromise the values and virtues of our nation and Constitution. This act will give us the tools to defend America from her enemies, while never ceding our standing as a nation of freedom and justice."
Senators Leahy and Feingold are also co-sponsors of the legislation. No word yet on whether Senator Lautenberg will support the bill.
You can become a citizen co-sponsor of the legislation by filling out the form in the ad in the right-hand column or by visiting Restore-Habeas.org.
I rarely use "breaking" in titles but I think this deserves it. After all the uproar over Senator Menendez's vote a few months ago for the unconstitutional Military Commissions Act which eliminated habeas corpus and legalized torture, it appears he's had a change of heart. That vote was taken under immense pressure during the campaign, and he's now doing the responsible thing and cleaning up the mess he helped make. According to an announcement from the campaign Senate office, Senator Chris Dodd will introduce and Bob Menendez will co-sponsor legislation to correct the "flawed Military Commissions Act":
WASHINGTON - TOMORROW, Tuesday, February 12, 2007, U.S. Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) will hold a press conference to discuss the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act which will restore habeus corpus rights, ban torture and uphold the Geneva Conventions. The senators, both members of the Foreign Relations Committee, will discuss the need for these protections in the fight against terrorism.
He's not only admitting his mistake, he's trying to fix it. That's a rare quality in politics.
Update: Lautenberg voted for the Military Commissions Act to give Menendez cover, so I would assume he will also support this bill.
Update 2: It's been pointed out to me that at the time, Menendez issued a statement indicating he would revisit this issue and fix the flawed legislation:
I look forward to returning to the Senate with a Democratic majority to make necessary improvements to this legislation to protect the civil liberties of all Americans.
Update 3: To clarify, Chris Dodd is the sponsor of this bill and Menendez is a co-sponsor. I'm told the legislation will actually be called "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007". More information at Restore-Habeas.org.
Update 4: Senators Feingold and Leahy are also co-sponsors. The full title of the bill is: "The Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 -- A Bill to Provide for the Effective Prosecution of Terrorists and to Guarantee Due Process Rights.
